[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200123092832.GA586919@kroah.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:28:32 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, lwn@....net,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: Linux 4.19.98
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 08:54:45AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Greg KH (2020-01-23 08:46:32)
> > I'm announcing the release of the 4.19.98 kernel.
>
> commit 3e6b472f474accf757e107919f8ee42e7315ac0d
> Author: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed Nov 14 09:55:40 2018 -0800
>
> efi: Fix debugobjects warning on 'efi_rts_work'
>
> [ Upstream commit ef1491e791308317bb9851a0ad380c4a68b58d54 ]
>
> The following commit:
>
> 9dbbedaa6171 ("efi: Make efi_rts_work accessible to efi page fault handler")
>
> converted 'efi_rts_work' from an auto variable to a global variable.
> However, when submitting the work, INIT_WORK_ONSTACK() was still used,
> causing the following complaint from debugobjects:
>
> ODEBUG: object 00000000ed27b500 is NOT on stack 00000000c7d38760, but annotated.
>
> Change the macro to just INIT_WORK() to eliminate the warning.
>
> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> Acked-by: Sai Praneeth Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: 9dbbedaa6171 ("efi: Make efi_rts_work accessible to efi page fault handler")
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181114175544.12860-2-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
>
> was incorrectly applied to v4.19.41 and causes lockdep complaints for
> the onstack efi_rts_work being initialised by INIT_WORK().
Incorrectly how? Fuzz off, or it shouldn't be applied at all? Should
this be reverted, or just fixed up, and if fixed up, do you have a patch
to fix it?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists